Re: Neosyllabaries

--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...> wrote:

> Richard Wordingham wrote:
> >
> > --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>

wrote:

> > > Richard Wordingham wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> > wrote:
> > > > A. The Indic scripts of Insular Southeast Asia are similar to what
> > > > Bright calls an alphasyllabary. He defines these as scripts in
> > > > which "each consonant-vowel sequence is a unit, called an aksara,
> > > > [and] in which the vowel symbol functions as an obligatory
> > > > diacritic to the consonant" (Bright 1996).
> > >
> > > Yes, that's Bright's definition of "alphasyllabary."
> >
> > Is or was?
>
> Do you have some reason to suppose he's changed his definition? If so,
> he hasn't told me about it (and after the Sejong article, he said he was
> tired of the whole matter and wouldn't deal with it any more).

Only this exchange:

Richard:
Have I missed something in these quotes? Neither (A) nor (B) requires
an implicit/inherent vowel, which Peter Daniels sees as an essential
feature of an abugida.

Peter Daniels:
And, if you look at Bill's context, for him too.

If 'for him too' is with reference to alphasyllabaries, then the
requirement to be an abugida is a change from definition (A) yielding
'Bright-2'. I invented 'Bright-2' in this thread. If he doesn't
require alphasyllabaries to be abugidas, we can forget about 'Bright-2'.

> > 3) Bright-2 alphasyllabary - both a Bright-1 alphasyllabary and an
> > abugida.

> > What's the issue with hPags-Pa? Is it that independent and dependent
> > vowels have the same symbol? (I'm assuming that the apparently
> > optional horizontal bar at the top of the vowel symbols is not a
> > distinguishing feature - perhaps it is!) Are the syllable-final
> > consonants an issue? Is it or is it not a 'Bright-2 alphasyllabary'?

> He says it's not an alphasyllabary because the vowel signs are separate
> letters and not appendages. But the consonant symbols are still /Ca/.

If we don't require alphasyllabaries to be abugidas, then I think
Korean qualifies. Every syllable character begins with a consonant
symbol, and the vowel may be to its right or below it, thus
subordinating the vowel to the consonant.

Richard.